MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148300124 · doi:10.1109/drcn.2003.1275376

Mpls fast reroute and optical mesh protection: a comparative analysis of the capacity required for packet link protection

2004· article· en· W2148300124 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiprotocol Label SwitchingComputer networkComputer scienceOptical mesh networkSurvivabilityLabel switchingShared meshOptical IP SwitchingPacket switchingNetwork packetRouterThe InternetWireless mesh networkTelecommunicationsInternet ProtocolQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging IP/MPLS-based services, such as voice, require high availability. This could be provided either by the underlying optical network or by the packet network itself. Choosing which layer will apply protection is a key network design decision. Two methods are compared from the point of view of the bandwidth required: MPLS fast reroute and optical mesh protection. A packet and an optical network are co-modelled and analyzed using capacity assignment, flow assignment, and survivability algorithms provided by an integrated tool called NetCalc. Results show that for router-to-router link protection, optical mesh protection requires less bandwidth than MPLS fast reroute.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207